User talk:Rajoub570Calligraphy as the image for peoplePlease do not use calligraphy as the image for people. MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and related Islam-specific guidelines, and standard guidelines for all of Wikipedia, tell us that it's ok not to have an image at all, and that an image should generally be what the article topic actually is rather than how some anonymous person on the internet chooses to write their name. DMacks (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topicsYou have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic. Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. == Welcome! == Hi Rajoub570! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Palestine/Israel conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.
The rule that affects you most as new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to Palestine/Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits. This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict. The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well. Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing.
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics. If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Grossman's chapter in Shomron StudiesHi. I'd like to verify your recent edits on demographics and also learn more about migrations into or within the Palestine region (Edit: or, more specifically, the West Bank). I was unsuccessful after some googling to access the book or at least the chapter/article by Grossman you cited, and there isn't an Israeli library near me. So I wonder if you know of any way the book, or at least the article, could be accessed online (preferably for free)? (It doesn't have to be in English; I can read Hebrew as well). Thank you and have a good day.-- Arpose (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ~ Hi Arpose. It's cool to find Wikipedia editors into the same stuff as me! About your question, I got lucky and found an actual copy of the book. Luckily, the Hebrew is pretty straightforward, so you don't need to be an expert. I remember seeing a copy online on Kotar, but I believe it's behind a paywall. Try using this link: https://kotar.cet.ac.il/kotarapp/index/Chapter.aspx?nBookID=100386206&nTocEntryID=100389518. Rajoub570 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Prior accountsHave you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 14:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
adding material with no sourceWhy are you adding material with a citation needed as here for example? nableezy - 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey . Just some note on the Palestinian origins article.I noticed that you added back this oft-quoted statement by some prominent Hamas official back , despite being told that it wasn't a proper source . I just want to say that per Wikipedia RS , WP:Undue Weight , WP:Fringe rules : the source just doesn't have much of a justification to be here, even with these additional new sources . A Politician of a non-academic background , speaking in front of an Egyptian News-channel , begging for aid by appealing to alleged common blood-ties just .. punches way below its weight , saying the least without typing too much . The fact the only ones quoting him are pro-Israeli polemicists should have made this clearer . The interview is best removed due to its politically-charged nature . It's a sad fact that none of the sources are not reputable as well as to justify keeping it . This also includes this article in Ecumenical review Journal , whose author tone is not at least a Middle-Eastern history authority , not dispassionate, and not a rigorous analysis with verifiable citations and references , where even the passing section related to Israel/Palestine states things wrongly . (Abd Al-Ghani Salam -not Salameh- is a Lebanese , not a Palestinian . There's also no such source called "Official P.A. TV, special broadcast for the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, November 1, 2017" ) .
188.54.78.153 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
D. GrossmanSince you are adding material from a D. Grossman all over the place, could you please start an article about him on en.wp? I believe it is this guy: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125872347, if so, he has an article on he.wp, you could possibly translate? Huldra (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
What's the deal already ?Do us both a favor , and admit that revision is now just a deprecated draft. It has been superseded by most of the meaningful metrics by the revision you reverted. If there are any desirable changes : it's best to do them on the proper revision , and not jumping back weeks for whatever random reason other than "no page count" (which it isn't) and petty reasons that don't justify shaving off 60% of an article , (including the body). You know what ? .. I am not going to do half measures saying " This will be reported " and let this drag on any longer .. Let's do it now by calling in some experts , and settle this. @Zero0000 , @Skitash , @Iskandar323 . We hate to trouble you , but we have a months old dispute verging on an edit war that's should have been obviously resolved weeks ago , but it hasn't , and Rajoub wants to pick it up again. We want to resolve it , via a third or more opinions. Here's the revision Rajoub has reverted , and here's the one he insists on restoring , Please take your time to compare the revisions , and at least someone gives us a verdict on which one better fulfils Verifiability , Reliable Sources , and Neutral Language , as well as faithfully representing sources, and not omitting/censoring crucial details them. Thank you all for your time. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter messageHello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |